Bill C-22 (Historical)

Constitution Act, 2007 (Democratic representation)

An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (Democratic representation)

This enactment amends the rules in the Constitution Act, 1867 for readjusting the number of members of the House of Commons and the representation of the provinces in that House.

Constitution Act, 2007 (Democratic representation)

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

moved that Bill C-22, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (Democratic representation), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to open debate on the Constitution Act, 2007: the democratic representation bill.

This bill reflects the government's commitment to modernizing Canada's democracy and strengthening our federation through democratic reform. It fulfills the government's commitment during the last election to restore the principle of representation by population in the House of Commons, while protecting the seat counts of provinces with slower population growth.

The bill will amend the formula set out in the Constitution for the readjustment of seats among the provinces, which happens after every 10 year census, so that it is more responsive to population growth in faster growing provinces. According to current population projections, this will mean that the provinces of Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta will receive additional seats after the next redistribution.

Consistent with the approach taken since Confederation, these seats will be added after the census in 2011, through the regular electoral boundaries redistribution process.

I would like to spend my time today addressing three points. First, I will outline the problems with the existing formula passed by Parliament in 1985.

Secondly, I will discuss the principles underlying the democratic representation bill.

Lastly, I will provide a technical overview of the formula being proposed in the new bill.

To understand why we have introduced the democratic representation bill it is necessary to understand the existing formula for the readjustment of seats in the House of Commons. The 1985 formula is based on three main steps.

First, a basic representation by population formula is used. The total population of the provinces is divided by 279, which was the number of MPs from the provinces in the House at the time the formula was adopted. The quotient, known as the national quotient, is then applied to the population of each province to determine its seat allocation.

The second step is not based on population. It requires adding extra seats to some provinces based on constitutional seat “floors”.

There are two such floors.

The first, known as the Senate floor, requires that a province have at least as many MPs as it does senators. The second floor is known as the grandfather clause. Every province is guaranteed as many seats as it had when the 1985 formula came into force, even if its population has subsequently declined. As a final step, a seat is added for each territory.

The current formula was debated and passed in 1985 and was intended primarily to restrict the rate of growth of the chamber. Indeed, if the 1974 formula were still in place, we would now be sitting in a House of about 369 members rather than one of 308. However, the 1985 formula limited growth in the membership of the House entirely at the expense of the faster growing provinces that do not enjoy seat floors for their seat counts.

With the passage of time, this has resulted in a serious representational imbalance in the House of Commons. Allow me to explain. For example, in the last readjustment, British Columbia had 13% of the population of the provinces and received 36 seats, which is 13% of the 279 in the House in 1985. If the current number of seats had been used, British Columbia would have been entitled to 40 seats.

In addition to this, once extra seats are accorded to provinces under the seat floors—currently, only Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia do not rely on seat floors to maintain their seats in the House—the relative representation of faster-growing provinces is further diminished.

What it means in practical terms is that Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia are the only provinces that are significantly underrepresented in the House of Commons. All other provinces are overrepresented in the House relative to their populations. What it means for Canadians in those provinces is that on average their members of Parliament have larger populations to serve than anywhere else in the country.

For instance, based on recently released 2006 census results, an average MP from Ontario, Alberta or BC represents 26,000 more constituents than the average MP from the other seven provinces.

This disparity in representation will only get worse over time if we stay with the existing formula.

Based on 2011 population projections, an average MP from Ontario, Alberta or BC will be called upon to represent over 29,000 more constituents than an MP in the other provinces.

Looked at another way, an average MP in Alberta represents almost 3.5 times as many constituents as an average MP in Prince Edward Island.

The electoral district of Brampton West has the unfortunate status of having the most constituents in a riding, with 170,422 people, based on the 2006 census. Currently, the riding of Labrador has the fewest constituents with only 29,084.

When I hear from Canadians in rapidly growing provinces, the issue of under-representation is very real for them. It creates a sense of distance and alienation from Ottawa. That is not good for our country or our democracy. That is why this government has introduced the democratic representation bill to restore fair representation in the House of Commons for all Canadians.

In developing the new formula, we sought to restore the principle of representation by population while respecting the constitutionally protected principle of the proportionate representation of the provinces in the House of Commons, which cannot be disturbed without the consent of seven provinces representing 50% of the population, a constitutional amendment threshold.

The principle of proportionate representation is a principle that has a democratic basis.

It is how, at the federal level, we balance the representational interests of Canadians that live in a country as large as ours, with a host of diverse regional, cultural and economic interests.

The principle of proportionate representation requires that all provinces be represented in the House roughly in proportion to their populations, in other words, that representation by population be generalized so that Canadians and the provinces have an equal voice in their national Parliament.

This balance between strict representation by population and protection for provinces with slower growing populations is not always an easy one. That is probably why the readjustment formula has been amended so many times since Confederation.

The balancing of principles was part of the debate when Canada was created by Sir John A. Macdonald, George-Étienne Cartier and the Fathers of Confederation. Their balancing of representation by population, with respect for the proportionate representation of the provinces, made possible the agreement that both forged our country and allowed it to grow over time.

As we all know, it was Canada West, as Ontario was then called, that sought to base the House of Commons on representation by population at Confederation, by the obvious fact that its population was larger than that of Canada East, as Quebec was called at the time.

However, decades later, it was Quebec that was calling for representation by population when its representation in the House was diminished by seat protection for other provinces.

Similarly, while Ontario is now significantly underrepresented, during the first half of the last century, from 1914 to 1946, it benefited substantially from constitutional seat protection provisions because its population was in relative decline.

In developing the formula proposed in the democratic representation bill, there were three additional considerations that we took into account in achieving our objective of proportionate representation.

First, the formula had to be more responsive to population changes so that Canadians would be more equitably represented in the House of Commons.

The current formula does not allow rapidly growing provinces to have their representation increase with their populations. This puts them in an unfair position and puts their constituents at a disadvantage.

At the same time, of course, the formula must recognize and be sensitive to the representation of provinces with slower-growing populations.

Therefore, we have updated the formula to ease the constraints on the representation of faster growing provinces, while maintaining protections for other provinces and territories.

As a second consideration, we needed to ensure the seat distribution was sensitive to the context and dynamics of the House. Canada is a country of small, medium and large provinces that all need to have an effective voice in the legislature.

While being fair to larger provinces, we needed to ensure the formula allowed smaller provinces to continue to be effectively represented in the House. For particularly small provinces such as P.E.I., this may require overrepresentation so that it has a basic level of representation in the House.

The formula provided in our democratic representation bill takes into account these considerations in ensuring the principle of proportionate representation is met fairly and equitably.

I believe it is important for all members and all Canadians to understand exactly what this formula is doing because it is so important for strengthening our democracy. Therefore, I will go through the formula step by step and then put each step within the context of the three objectives I have just discussed.

The first step is similar to the current calculation that divides the total provincial population by total provincial seats to determine a national quotient.

The population of each province is then divided by the quotient to determine each province's initial seat allocation based on its population.

The key difference in the bill's formula is that instead of using the number 279 to determine the national quotient—which permanently depresses the number of seats that a fast-growing province can obtain—a gradually escalating number is used.

As I mentioned earlier, the use of 279 in the current formula assumes the House is the same size as it was after the 1971 census and so fast-growing provinces can only gain a proportionate share of this reduced number of seats.

In contrast, the democratic representation bill replaces 279 with the number of provincial seats in the readjustment based on the census of 30 years earlier. For instance, after the 2011 census, the number 292 would be used to determine the national quotient. In the readjustment after the 2021 census, the number 298 would be used, which would be the number of MPs after the census from 30 rather than 50 years ago.

This simple change represents a balance. It permits better growth for faster growing provinces, such as Ontario, while recognizing that this growth needs some moderation to protect the voice of slower growing provinces and to maintain the House itself at a manageable size.

The second step of our formula is unchanged from the current formula. Extra seats are added to provinces under the Senate floor and the 1985 grandfather clause. This recognizes that provinces whose populations may not merit a large number of seats under the representation by population calculation of step one should still have a threshold level of representation that ensures they have an effective voice in the chamber.

In fact, since 1985, Ontario, Alberta and B.C. are the only provinces that have not relied on these floors to maintain their representation in the House.

The other provinces receive extra seats under this step and under the Democratic Representation Bill they will continue to keep these seats.

Of course, if these provinces were to grow more rapidly in the future, they would receive additional seats pursuant to the formula.

The third step in our formula aims to achieve fairness. Put simply, it provides that if a province that does not benefit from a constitutional seat floor, yet is smaller than a province that does benefit from a seat floor, that smaller province should be entitled to the same representation as the larger province enjoying the guarantee. This means that we move closer to representation by population while respecting the proportionate representation of the province.

Finally, the last step of adding one seat per territory remains the same under the proposed formula as under the current formula.

In terms of numbers, the democratic representation bill is expected to have the following results, based on population projections for 2011.

All provinces with constitutionally protected floors will keep their current seat counts. Alberta will receive five new seats under the new formula rather than only one under the existing formula. B.C. will receive seven seats rather than only two. Ontario, by virtue of the new gradually escalating divisor in step one, will receive ten new seats under the readjustment formula rather than only four under the current law. Ontario's representation demonstrably improves under this bill compared to the existing formula.

As I mentioned earlier, it is important to remember that Ontario is now significantly underrepresented under the existing law. The bill being debated today addresses this inequity. The formula in the bill would result in a substantial reduction in the average population of ridings in Ontario. Following the next readjustment of seats, the average constituency population of an Ontario MP would be reduced by more than 6,000 constituents, from 121,588 under the current formula to 115,299 under the formula proposed in this bill, facilitating the ability of MPs to reach out to their constituents and to hear their concerns.

The fact is that under this bill Ontario would receive more seats than any other province and more new seats than any other province, and Ontario would still have the most seats of any province.

Should this bill be defeated, or delayed such that it does not pass, it will mean Ontario will lose the gains that we now propose. Without this bill, Ontario will becoming increasingly underrepresented as we move into the future. Let us be clear. To oppose this bill is to oppose better representation for Ontario.

For a strong democracy and a strong federation like Canada, the composition of the national legislature must ensure the effective representation of all the provinces, even though they differ significantly in terms of size, geography, history and population growth. This has been the historical approach to representation in the House of Commons since Confederation.

Bill C-22 was introduced in the spirit of that tradition.

In short, the democratic representation bill represents a balanced approach between restoring the principle of representation by population while respecting the constitutionally entrenched principle of proportionate representation of the provinces in the House of Commons.

I would remind this House of Commons of the words of Father of Confederation George Brown in the legislative assembly, our predecessor assembly, on February 8, 1865. A Reformer, as Liberals were then called, and a leading advocate of representation by population, he said the following about the balancing of the representation principles in the soon to be Canadian Constitution:

No constitution ever framed was without defect; no act of human wisdom was ever free from imperfection; no amount of talent and wisdom and integrity combined in preparing such a scheme could have placed it beyond the reach of criticism. And the framers of this scheme had immense special difficulties to overcome. We had the prejudices of race and language and religion to deal with; and we had to encounter all the rivalries of trade and commerce, and all the jealousies of diversified local interests. To assert, then, that our scheme is without fault would be folly. It was necessarily the work of concession....

But Mr. Speaker, admitting all this--admitting all the difficulties that beset us--admitting frankly that defects in the measure exist--I say that, taking the scheme as a whole, it has my cordial enthusiastic support, without hesitation or reservation.

I call on all members of this House to adopt the spirit of George Brown, to recognize that the proposal is a fair and honest effort to strengthen the founding principle of representation by population, while respecting the principle of proportionate representation of the provinces.

The critics of today voice the same arguments as the critics at the time of Confederation, but it was the Fathers of Confederation, not the critics, who built this country, Canada.

I ask the members of the House to rise above sectional or partisan interest, to put Canada first and to strengthen our Confederation. Our democratic representation bill will do exactly that.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to read parts of David Smith's book The People's House of Commons that is at the Library of Parliament. He is an eminent Saskatchewan political scientist who has said that the triple E cause for the Senate, which the government in part espouses, is really the work of Canada west and a number of academics, but he also posits that the House of Commons is the people's house. Whereas the Senate should represent provincial interests, the House of Commons represents the people's interests and unless we move to a representation by population model, the defenders of voting power disparities between the provinces, which is what this bill creates, may justify the status quo by invoking federalism, but the right to vote is an individual right, not the right of a province.

I would ask the minister to keep that in mind while I ask him two small questions based on his comments inside the House and outside the House. He talked about a manageable size. In interviews, he has said that one of the reasons Ontario is not getting its fair share of seats has something to do with the size of the chamber. I want him to address that issue and clarify it forever.

I also want to know why he, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Finance, men not without influence in the government, presumably or putatively, cannot convince the government to give Ontario more than the 10 seats it deserves. Are they self-loathing Ontario politicians or do they think that the premier of Ontario is a small man in this Confederation when he says, “I just want for Ontario what it deserves?”

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, we do not propose a pure representation by population formula. The consequence of utilizing a formula like that, which is the logical extension of the formula that Mr. McGuinty appears to espouse, would be to render my friend's province with half the members it currently has and we simply do not believe that should be the case. We have to respect two principles: representation by population and proportionate representation of the provinces.

The fact is that Ontario is the best represented province and it is better represented as a consequence of this bill than is the case under the existing law. I remind my friend that when his party was in government, it twice brought forward bills dealing with this very piece of legislation. It twice brought forward bills dealing with it to accelerate redistribution and the like, yet it made no effort whatsoever to address the underrepresentation of Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia.

I suspect that the critics have another agenda, a very partisan agenda, an agenda that relates to the fact that they do not want to see these areas of rapid growth that have strong economies enjoy their fair representation in the House of Commons. I suspect that their real objective is to stop this bill in its tracks so that the current unfair distribution can remain in place, harming and hurting the democratic rights of those in British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario.

I read with interest the submission that the premier of Ontario sent to me. It was an interesting submission. It was perhaps 30 pages in length. I was very interested in it because nowhere in that submission whatsoever was there one word that referred to the existing law.

It did not surprise me, frankly, because before we introduced our bill, never once did I find any piece of correspondence or any issue anywhere, any indication from the premier of Ontario that he had a problem with the existing formula. Only when we sought to improve the representation of Ontario did he make complaints. That I found surprising and does not reflect Ontario's interests.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been interested over the last two days in this issue of democratic reform. I have always been trying to get a real clear answer from anybody as to what the Senate actually does.

Yesterday we were told it protects the rights of minorities. Of course if we go back to John A. Macdonald, when he said “minorities”, he meant the rich. He said that there will always be a lot more poor people than rich people, so we have to have a special chamber to protect the interests of the powerful.

Today I hear the Liberals saying that the Senate is there to represent the interests of the provinces. If one were to ask the average Canadian, he or she would say the Senate is there for people who have flipped pancakes at Liberal Party fundraisers for 30 years and they are given basically a life of leisure working two or three days a week.

Where were they last week? They were in New Mexico at a casino. While hard-working Canadians were suffering in -50° weather, the senators were at the casino. If the government was wondering where Bill C-2 was being stalled, it could have put some suntan lotion on the government member's back and he could have gone to try to rouse some of the senators from their pina colada luncheons that are being paid for by the taxpayers of Canada.

People need relief from that crew. Why does the government not just do the simple thing about democratic reform, throw them out, open the other place up as a public basketball court, save the Canadian taxpayers a lot of grief and actually save the embarrassment of having an upper chamber based on party patronage and cronyism in the 21st century?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. I am not sure about the relevance of the question. My understanding is that the bill has to do with representation in this chamber, but I see the government House leader rising to answer it, so we will give him an opportunity.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think those are very worthy comments and in fact they are very relevant because they go to the heart of the nature of the democratic representation we have in both houses of Parliament, the Senate and the House of Commons.

Our view is, of course, that it is important for us to strengthen the democracy, fairness and legitimacy of our House of Commons. We also want to see the legitimacy of the Senate improved. That is why we are proposing changes in terms of term limits and in terms of asking Canadians who they want to represent them in the Senate.

I have much sympathy for the comments made by the member for Timmins—James Bay, but I will take issue with him on one important matter. I do not think 30 years of flipping pancakes at Liberal events is enough to get someone into the Senate. I think they have to go out and raise a lot of that money that the Liberal Party seems to like in order to get that appointment, but that is not what the Senate should be for and that is not how it should operate.

We are seeking to change the Senate, but our government is also very clear on the record. If the entrenched interests of the Liberal Party, the Liberals in the Senate and those various elites of the party who want to protect their interests resist any change--and in our structure they have the ability to do it and they already did it with their Senate term limits--then we will have to look seriously and consider what I know the member for Timmins—James Bay believes, that the Senate should be abolished. If it does not change, that is something that we will have to consider.

That makes it all the more important to support this bill on democratic representation in the House of Commons. We have to ensure that we have a level of representation here that is fair, that is balanced, that allows all provinces to feel that they have a fair share in participating in this country, that allows those rapid growing provinces that are underrepresented right now to enjoy fair and proper representation in the House of Commons.

If we do that, I know that we will be a lot closer to being able to achieve the objective that the member has in mind, if that is where he wants to go.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the government House leader for a great speech and for outlining very clearly the direction we need to go to bring representation by population closer to reality.

I am the member for the riding of Edmonton Centre, which is growing very rapidly and has somewhere between 130,000 and 135,000 constituents now. I can sympathize with folks who have difficulty, who have to work extra hard because of all those people. I would love to have a riding with 30,000 people in it, but that is not the reality.

I wonder if the government House leader could comment on the workload of the average MP with one of those ridings that is growing very rapidly and in fact is overpopulated.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is of course one of the imbalances. I know that those of us who serve on the Board of Internal Economy are often wrestling with ways to address the fact that some members of Parliament are being asked to provide services of various types with high numbers of constituents, as many as 170,000 in the case of one constituency. That is a very heavy workload.

When that workload faces a member of Parliament, it is a double problem. First, it is the problem of keeping up with serving one's constituents so that they are provided the same level of services as other members of Parliament elsewhere in the country can provide to their constituents. It also raises an issue of their ability to engage in the other important work of the House of Commons, so that they do have time to engage in debates like this to consider the important legislation in front of us.

That is why it is so important for us to have a healthy, functioning democracy, that each member of Parliament is in a position to perform all aspects of his or her job. That is why we have to have some fairness.

But the most fundamental principle is that of democracy. We want to be closer to the principle that every person's vote in this country counts for the same weight. We know we will never achieve that kind of perfection. It is impossible in a country that is always rapidly growing, where we are always working on a census that is several years behind and the like. That being said, that should not stop us from trying to achieve a better result, from trying to have better representation.

I know there will be critics who will always say it is not perfect. I say to them, what is the solution? We have not heard a proposal from the Liberal Party. Our party has made a clear proposal. It is a proposal that will be better for Canada's democracy.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, there have been some discussions between the parties and, if you were to seek it, I believe there would be unanimous consent for me to split my time with the member for Mississauga—Erindale.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Does the hon. member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe have the unanimous consent of the House for him to split his time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thought it was important to underscore the resentment in Ontario with respect to this legislation.

I respect the constitutional guarantees and the customary guarantees with respect to the provinces that are not growing in size. I come from a province that is not growing in size substantially, partly because it suffered under a Conservative government all these years, but now that will change.

However, it is important to underscore that this is about fairness and this is about the great wrong that is being done to Ontario by this bill. If it were Manitoba, the territories, Prince Edward Island or any other province, I would stand and say the same thing. I would just insert the name of the province that is being wronged. The name of that province that is being wronged today by the introduction of this legislation is Ontario.

Those Ontario MPs who support the bill should have a hard, long look at it or have a good look at their margins to make sure they are safe in the next election.

The objective of Bill C-22, which was introduced for the first time in the last session, is to amend the formula provided in the Constitution for adjusting the number of seats for each province in the House of Commons. The bill has been tabled pursuant to the powers conferred on Parliament under section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The Constitution assigns to the House the duty of amending the provisions in the Constitution relating to the House of Commons.

By suggesting an equitable representation of rapidly growing provinces, while protecting the seats of those provinces which are growing more slowly, or not at all, such as New Brunswick, the proposed formula conforms to the “principle of proportionate representation of the provinces” described in paragraph 42(1)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1982.

The new formula set out in the bill would restore the proportional representation of British Columbia and Alberta, and would somewhat improve Ontario’s representation, but a problem would still remain. We have no argument with this formula and this bill in terms of the interests of British Columbia or Alberta. As far as we are concerned, it is fine.

Under this new formula for an expanded House of Commons, only 10 seats will be allocated to Ontario. That is not enough. At the same time, like many others, I fear that this bill will weaken the representation of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Quebec and the Atlantic Provinces, including New Brunswick. Our presence in this House is a sign that we follow the principal of representation by population. The other chamber, the Senate, protects the interests of the provinces and minorities. Their formula for representation is perhaps not as equitable in representing the provinces since their representation is based not on population but on regions.

I am very concerned by the fact that the government is proposing to change the representation in this House but not in the Senate. When it says that there are not enough seats in this House for British Columbia and Alberta—that is true—it does not mention that in the Senate, British Columbia and Alberta have only six seats. What are they doing about Senate representation for the two provinces that are at the heart of this bill? Perhaps the government has forgotten those provinces.

Before I discuss the problems with the government's attitude toward the Senate and before we get to those bills which seek to go with the Canada west dream of an elected Senate, which is what I think this government wants, there are many people over there hiding in a closet who really want to abolish the Senate.

We heard that when we listened to the remarks made by that minister. That minister has grown quite a bit of support for the concept that the Conservative Party now feels and believes, and will run on the abolition of the Senate. That is its prerogative, but we now know its real position. The Conservatives are aided with at least the NDP, who will never govern and never make a change like this anyway. At least the NDP stands up for what it believes in and it wants the Senate abolished.

I wonder why the government is standing up and saying that it is going to reform the Senate a little bit here and there when it really wants to abolish it. It is the same card game going on here. The Conservatives say they want to institute a formula that is fair to everyone. In this case what fair means is Alberta and British Columbia are going to get more seats. The government never knows what it will give Ontario. It is pretty red. One year I think it went 99 seats out of 101 seats red. That is a bad colour for those guys over there.

Where the government is giving 10 seats, it is a bit like going trick or treating. The government has its bag and it is all excited and the Premier of Ontario is at the door, and he gets an apple with a razor blade in it. Is he supposed to say thanks for that apple? The Premier of Ontario is supposed to get the treats that everyone gets when something like that happens.

For Ontario members and ministers in the front row who clearly are being run by their Alberta colleagues, including the Prime Minister, to go home from this trick or treat and be happy is naive. They are not representing their province and they should be ashamed of themselves for not standing up. They should stand up for Ontario.

What I stand up for is fairness. We on the Liberal side stand for fairness. Yes, Alberta and British Columbia should get the seats that their population shows they deserve. Yes to Alberta and yes to British Columbia. Yes to all the other provinces whose seats will not be diminished. Yes to the territories which deserve better and more representation.

We say no to the proposal with respect to Ontario. Why penalize Ontario? I do not represent Ontario. There are an awful lot of Ontario people who have moved to Moncton, New Brunswick of course because it is a land of opportunity and we are a cosmopolitan region.

I represent the riding of Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe. Of course, I am pleased that our seats were not diminished. That is great. But what is important to me in any concept of the discussion of Confederation is that we all be treated equally.

If the Conservatives are attacking Ontario today, who is to say that they might not attack New Brunswick tomorrow. I stand in solidarity with the Premier of Ontario and the MPs from Ontario, who will say throughout this debate, the ones with guts and fortitude and who care about their province, that this is wrong. I stand with the many scholars who say it is wrong.

I stand with the general principle of democratic reform because despite the label over there, the minister in his 20-minute speech did not answer or respond or at least presage an argument that has to be: where is the consultation? Where is the consultation that the minister and the government had with the provinces?

That consultation is in the public I guess and it is called name-calling, bullying, intimidation and disrespect. That minister and that government should not speak to the partners in Confederation that way. That is disgraceful and more than that, it is not productive. How can he say to this House that he has consulted with all the premiers and all the ministers responsible for intergovernmental affairs, and has a consensus as to how we should proceed with respect to representation by population?

How can that minister stand in this place, when he is quoted as saying that one of the reasons we cannot put more Ontario MPs in this place is because we may not have enough room on the floor of the House? What other excuse is he going to come up with next? We wonder if that member over there representing democratic reform is some sort of undemocratic reform initiative proposer and he is about to say that we are going to really come true to ourselves and say that if people vote Conservative they will be given more seats, but if they do not, they will not.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I should set the record straight on a couple of things.

First, Canada west, of course, historically refers not to the western provinces but to the old province of Ontario. I thought I would correct my friend because I know he wants Canadians to know he is aware of the realities.

In terms of the reason why we have allowed Ontario to grow under its divisor but are not providing the bump up provided by other provinces is a very simple one: the principle of proportionate representation of the provinces.

Right now, Quebec benefits from a seat floor, so those that are smaller than Quebec have some legitimate reason to expect the same kind of representation as a province that has a guarantee.

However, the effect of doing what my friend has just said and agree with Dalton McGuinty, the Premier of Ontario, and apply the exact same formula to them, would be to render the guarantee that Quebec enjoys today meaningless and ineffective. It will have wiped out the principle of proportionate representation of the provinces insofar as Quebec is concerned.

I want to ask the hon. member a very simple question and I want him to be clear. Does he agree with Dalton McGuinty's approach and is that the position of the Liberal Party? This is a yes or no answer because that position is to render Quebec's guarantee ineffective. Is that the position of the Liberal Party of Canada? I would like to know, yes or no.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, what we have heard from that minister is that he agrees that his proposal is unfair. He said Ontario is not getting its just number of seats. He does not cite any study and he does not have any authority for the concept that Quebec's constitutional guarantee will be undermined.

Until I hear further evidence, and this minister never presents any evidence, the Premier of Ontario is correct. He is correct when he says that Ontario should get more seats.

Whether the number is 10, 16, 12, 24 or 83, I do not know. I am not in government. That minister is. I am not in charge of bringing forward bills, but if I were, and I hope that day comes soon, we would do it fairly and we will have a meeting with our counterparts.

This minister is afraid of his counterparts. Let him ask and answer the question, did he sit with all of the provincial premiers and get those figures from them? No, he is afraid of them.